Typing Methods: Type of Information Metabolism

I see a lot of weird and vague arguments for and against typings, and I think a lot of the confusion could be cleared up by remembering what sociotype means in the first place.

A sociotype is a TYPE OF INFORMATION METABOLISM.

It is NOT a set of behavioral traits like "loud", "gregarious", "antisocial", "finnicky", "nice", "passive", etc.

So while, in practice, it is easiest to invoke comparisons to people of known type or concrete behavioral traits, it is ALWAYS PREFERABLE to instead characterize a person's information metabolism.

What does this mean? For example, if I see that someone uses actively all the time and seems to avoid using , I can conclude that they are probably an ego type. It's key to define what "using " means here.

In short, information metabolism is the input, processing, creation, and output of information.

There is NO ONE OBSERVABLE TRAIT that is unique to a particular type, nor does any type always have a particular observable trait. There are many people of the same type that are nothing alike at first glance, yet share something more abstract.

If you stick to this methodology your typings will be more robust. It is necessary to gain experience with concrete examples of the types, but I still meet people who are nothing like anybody I knew before, and in that case I am forced to resort to more abstract typing methods.

The semantics of the information elements are simpler and more objectively apparent than anything else in socionics. Learn them and profit.

removing behavioral traits from the analysis in socionics is intellectual suicide. it makes it impossible to check claims for truth.

you speak about "methodology", when in fact your way of thinking is a rejection of methodology.

i agree that in the final analysis a socionics type would be something apart and separate from behavior, but it is simply not workable to discuss the types in this way without creating a climate where the correctness of claims is neglected in favor of their ability to attract publicity.

This is an almost perfect translation of long-going intellectual disputes among Kiev socionists. One side (Yermak) sees "information metabolism" as the foundational principle of socionic types, and the other side (Gulenko, sometimes others) accuses him of fleeing into an abstraction. In practice, neither side is as extreme as they may appear to be based on their words alone. Certainly, thehotelambush is not eschewing behavioral traits altogether — just a certain category of "concrete" traits that are not necessarily deeply intertwined with the rest of a person's personality. Behavioral traits that are stable over the long term and have a large impact on a person's relationships with others, I think, are often related to socionic type.

Even the silly ones like "loud," though, often have some correlation with type. For instance, probably only 10-20% of ILIs would be labelled "loud" by others, while 30-50% of SEEs might be. Intuitive types are probably more likely to have an avoidant relationship style, and Ne types are more likely to be noncommittal. I think thehotelambush would agree with this, but that the correlations are not strong enough to make a big deal about in typing.

The weakness of the "information metabolism above all" approach is that "it's key to define what is here." Not all types tend to be skilled at this intuitive approach (try teaching it to a SEE, for instance). So there is always opposition between an approach that starts with abstractions and incorporates concrete traits "when necessary" and an approach that goes the other way. And between people who are old hands at socionics vs. those who are new and flailing around trying to relate type to something they can comprehend.

It is easier for the eye of a camel to pass through a rich man than for a needle to enter the kingdom of heaven.

This is an almost perfect translation of long-going intellectual disputes among Kiev socionists. One side (Yermak) sees "information metabolism" as the foundational principle of socionic types, and the other side (Gulenko, sometimes others) accuses him of fleeing into an abstraction.

Very interesting.

In practice, neither side is as extreme as they may appear to be based on their words alone. Certainly, thehotelambush is not eschewing behavioral traits altogether — just a certain category of "concrete" traits that are not necessarily deeply intertwined with the rest of a person's personality. Behavioral traits that are stable over the long term and have a large impact on a person's relationships with others, I think, are often related to socionic type.

Of course, I have nothing against using behavioral traits in typing, and most of my typings are based on some kind of behavioral observations. But still, I am talking about all traits, not just a certain category. They should always be linked back to information metabolism somehow.

Like I said, it's important to learn the manifestations, but to have any kind of reasonably objective discussion on an internet forum about typings it may help to take a relentlessly theoretical approach. People complain endlessly about how subjective typing is, and I feel that with this approach there is very little subjectivity.

Even the silly ones like "loud," though, often have some correlation with type. For instance, probably only 10-20% of ILIs would be labelled "loud" by others, while 30-50% of SEEs might be. Intuitive types are probably more likely to have an avoidant relationship style, and Ne types are more likely to be noncommittal. I think thehotelambush would agree with this, but that the correlations are not strong enough to make a big deal about in typing.

Definitely.

I am only making this post because of what I have personally discovered to work in my own typings over the last 5 years.

Honestly, I remember hearing you make similar arguments when I was still a beginner and it can be confusing, because it demands greater familiarity with socionic concepts.

The weakness of the "information metabolism above all" approach is that "it's key to define what is here."

Yeah, I slipped that very important sentence in there.

Not all types tend to be skilled at this intuitive approach (try teaching it to a SEE, for instance). So there is always opposition between an approach that starts with abstractions and incorporates concrete traits "when necessary" and an approach that goes the other way. And between people who are old hands at socionics vs. those who are new and flailing around trying to relate type to something they can comprehend.

When someone's learning socionics it's important to have lots of concrete examples to learn from, e.g. to learn what is. But it's best to get weaned off of them as soon as possible, because who knows, maybe you're talking to someone who happens to only know the 10-20% of ILIs that happen to be loud.

What I often observe especially on this forum is that when people use IM, everyone has such a different interpretation that the results are that all 8 IM will be named. While if you look at behaviour, you will rarely hear someone say, he's loud, and someone else say he's quite. Then there's more agreement.

anyways, I think after a while of typing people, you will make your own mental constructs of how a type looks like, and you don't use a methodology anymore, only comparison with your mental constructs.

information metabolism based interpretations are not even an "approach" to socionics. every time a person uses an argument based on interpretations of what form of "information metabolism" is going on on an unverifyable, "behind-the-scenes" level, they are just formulating an obfuscationary excuse for going with whatever vibes with the subjective impressions. it has nothing to do with providing a measure of "evidence" of a typing to the best extent this is possible. this is how it promotes the climate of controversy that plagues communities like these.

1) Promotion of misleading stereotypings about what various types are supposedly like, which fail to incorporate a realistic range of individual differences.

stereotypes are also an issue where "information metabolism" is concerned. this is not an argument.

2) Subjective variations in observer POVs/impressions when assessing another's behavior. It's not unusual for two different individuals observing the same person's behavior, under the same conditions, to arrive at opposing interpretations about it. For example, what may seem 'crass' and 'rude' to someone might seem entirely 'easygoing' and 'friendly' to another.

this is to a far, far worse extent the case with interpretations of "information metabolism". how can you possibly think this argument helps YOUR case?

3) There are plenty of other observable cues humans give off which are typologically useful, making it unnecessary to rely any great extent upon behavioral-based conjectures, apparent traits, or patterns thereof when typing someone.

if you're focussing on "observable cues", you're not in the information metabolism camp. these observable cues are exactly what behaviorists look for. you have clearly not understood the problem.

just for clarity's sake; i was an IM-enthusiast for most of the three years i first studied socionics. i believed in the fiction as fanatically as a lot of people here do. i started focussing on observable traits when i realized that the level of controversy raised by the practice was unacceptable. the only way to keep up the IM interpreting game is to engage in a kind of immature form of solipsism where you expect yourself to always be guessing right and others to be guessing wrong. there are never any verifyable predictions made and so never any risks of being exposed as a charlatan. from the cynical point of view, this makes anyone who joins the "game" a charlatan by default.

I usually work off of self-report data. I listen to people, read what they say, I look at how they phrase their communication and what semantic patterns they tend to employ.

right, you do focus on observable properties. this is the broader concept of what i get at with "behavior". behavior is not of special importance in this regard.

I'll also examine their values and beliefs, desires and motivations, what they're reactive to, their outlooks on the world, etc.

this is more difficult, because to reach these things one needs to engage in an act of interpretation. usually this interpretative step can not be fully revealed to an audience. this is why the practice is subjective and prone to creating controversy.

Ultimately, what's vital from all of this is getting an idea of how the person perceives themselves to be and through what sort of psychological orientation they tend to experience life and reality.

this "getting an idea" is what i'm referring to. there is always something left unexposed about how these ideas are formed. when another person sees eye to eye with you on the judgment, this is not a problem. when the intuition is not shared, you need a more "public" way of explaining the argument, and it is here that usually observable characteristics are cited.

When and how does information metabolism inculcate stereotyping?

Se is willpower, Ti is logic, alpha is fun, etc, etc, etc...

And certainly, even if it did, it's been nowhere near as egregious of an abuse as behavioral stereotypes always have been.

the practice is equally commonplace if not more so.

What interpretations are you referring to? Point at something.

i don't have time. the argument is really basic. it's amazing you could even suggest that behavior is more variant to interpretation than socionics functions and IM processes are.

Usually when referring to a person's 'behavior' in a psychological context, this is taken to mean something about that person's volitional actions or conduct. Whereas things like autonomic physiological processes wouldn't fall under the same umbrella.

behavior is not the primary issue. i'm mainly getting at anything that can be observed and pointed out without raising controversy over it's identity. such properties can then be used as undenyable bases for consensus formation. IM processes occur "behind the scenes", on an unobservable plane, and are as such never instances of such properties.

The camp of IM: it's an expression of his discomfort he's using Si. Another of the same camp would say, it's an expression of his emotions, it's Fe. And this continue's until all 8 IM's have been accused of being the reason for being loud.

The camp of behaviour: everybody says, he's loud, so more likely extravert than introvert.

simply put, IM camp looks for motivation behind the scenes, these are not visible so everybody invents their own idea. Behaviour camp looks at correlation between behaviour and type.

just for clarity's sake; i was an IM-enthusiast for most of the three years i first studied socionics. i believed in the fiction as fanatically as a lot of people here do. i started focussing on observable traits when i realized that the level of controversy raised by the practice was unacceptable. the only way to keep up the IM interpreting game is to engage in a kind of immature form of solipsism where you expect yourself to always be guessing right and others to be guessing wrong. there are never any verifyable predictions made and so never any risks of being exposed as a charlatan. from the cynical point of view, this makes anyone who joins the "game" a charlatan by default.

What's the difference between your method and the IMers? Your basis must be derived from a source population who were determined via "subjective" IM predictions. There's nothing quite yet that's objective about socionics, hence the disparity in typings consistently being produced.

It's called TIM for a reason. The theory itself was based on the way different types metabolize information. Everything else exudes from that premise.

To go purely by either is ridiculous. But I tend to prefer the IM methodology. I don't think that behavior is nearly so telling as the things which occur in the person's mind. However, it is easy to see how a behaviorist approach is more objective.

I don't know much about this (I'm currently trying to find good sources of it, along with reasoning it out myself), but it seems to me the main problem with IM analysis rather than behavior analysis is the subjective nature of the former. Be that as it may, I think that, if IM analysis was more accurate/objective, it would clear why it is a better typing method.

That's all I have for now. I can only speak in vague language, as my understanding is not very well developed. I think there is some potential in Information Aspects, if it were ever decided what they mean.

More later, maybe. This is really abstract stuff (especially since there aren't many good sources), so thinking about it is difficult. However, I think something shall become apparent soon.

Originally Posted by labcoat

Se is willpower, Ti is logic, alpha is fun, etc, etc, etc...

Are you sure this is what IM is? This sounds to me more like a behaviorist perspective. "Se types use force", "Ti types create logical constructs", etc. One can easily see these manifestations of behavior. Information Metabolism, in my understanding, describes what information is gathered and what information is ignored. If that is not what IM is, could you tell me what the name is for what I am talking about?

The truth is, behavior is at least partially determined by the TIM, but I do not think it is 100% accurate.

It sounds to me, actually, that what you are saying is an attempt to describe the external manifestations of Information Elements, not Information Metabolism.

Maybe... maybe Information Aspect describes the type of information one gathers, Information Elements describes the interpretations/external manifestation of behavior inherently there because of the type of information it gathers, and Information Metabolism is a conglomerate of the two. That would explain why behavior can also be used to determine type, I think... At any rate, it seems to me that Information Metabolism is the most general, and then Information Aspect and Information Element are subordinate to it, and are related somehow.

Sorry is this is common knowledge... I'm still fairly new to Socionics.

There are other reasons for the disparity thinkable. Different and weak typing methods. Not experienced users of typing methods. Not knowing the typed person as well. Etc.

Overall there is a lot of objectivity in socionics. Everyone knows that extraverts are energy spillers and introverts are energy savers. Though IM's are less easy to define and therefor also lead more easely to confusion.

There are other reasons for the disparity thinkable. Different and weak typing methods. Not experienced users of typing methods. Not knowing the typed person as well. Etc.

All of these are subjectivities, or at least introduce subjective bias.

Originally Posted by Jarno

Overall there is a lot of objectivity in socionics. Everyone knows that extraverts are energy spillers and introverts are energy savers. Though IM's are less easy to define and therefor also lead more easely to confusion.

No, the only objective criteria that can be measured currently would be relationship statistics. Everything else is entirely subjective (or at least qualitative as opposed to quantitative), for example the above bolded bits and other stereotypes. They are useful as guidelines but no more than that.

All of these are subjectivities, or at least introduce subjective bias.

No, the only objective criteria that can be measured currently would be relationship statistics. Everything else is entirely subjective (or at least qualitative as opposed to quantitative), for example the above bolded bits and other stereotypes. They are useful as guidelines but no more than that.

oh oke.

When I write objective I mean what the majority of the people agree on. Else everything would be subjective. But I see what you mean.

I think now that I worded this post too strongly - can it please be un-stickied?

I still see information metabolism as the fundamental object of socionics, but people also go easily to the other extreme of ignoring behavior which is also not right. Attributing behaviors to type is fine as long as you know which attributions to make and realize how widespread they actually are.

@thehotelambush
Information metabolism is a rather amorphous term. This seems to suggest somewhat of a blackbox approach: stuff goes in and stuff comes out but what goes on inside is largely irrelevant. The Socionics black box consists of eight compartments and the degree to which the compartments are used comprise the basis for determining type behaviour. Therefore, one can predict how organizations function simply by assigning observed output to a set of standard departments. The view can be nothing but superficial........